Transport (Wales) Bill - Standing Committee F

[Miss Anne Begg in the Chair]

Transport (Wales) Bill

Clause 9 - Functions of the Committee

Question proposed, [this day], That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question again proposed.

Nick Ainger: As I was saying before our break, the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) was concerned about the independence of the public transport users committee for Wales. I was giving the example of the London transport users committee, which is funded by the London assembly, but which does not appear to have had the problems with its independence that the hon. Gentleman envisages for the Welsh transport users committee.
All that I can say is that the Welsh Assembly has no intention of usurping the committee’s independence. Why would it, anyway? The committee is a forum for users to express their concerns about, or support for, issues such as the strategy or parts of the new rail franchising arrangements. It would be in the Assembly’s interests to have a clear voice openly setting out transport users’ concerns. Experience shows that the London committee is effective and represents the views of public transport passengers, and I see no reason why that should not happen in Wales.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of passengers who are resident in England but who use services in Wales. If they have a concern, or they refer a concern to a representative body in England, they or that body could make direct representations to the transport users committee for Wales, to the Assembly or to the relevant Committee of the Assembly. There are therefore channels by which a resident in England can make representations about their concerns. They can do that directly to the users committee, to the Minister with responsibility for the issue or to the Committee that scrutinises that Minister’s Department.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured by my comments and that we can now move on to clause 10.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful to the Minister, who is being helpful. His answer was deeply constructive and helpful, but I am dying to ask him one  question: if someone took a bus from London to Cardiff, which transport users group would they complain to if they were unhappy?

Nick Ainger: If the problem occurred at Reading, they would clearly complain to the English body that represented passengers; if it happened in Newport, they would complain to the Welsh body. It might, however, be an ongoing problem relating purely to the train. Yet again, there might be no chef on the First Great Western train to provide hot food for the first-class passengers. Those who get on the train at Port Talbot or Swansea will suffer throughout the length of the journey to London, so perhaps they should complain to both bodies at the same time.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful to the Minister, who is beginning to see not only the humorous side, but the difficulties that arise when people are unhappy. I am also grateful to him for making it clear that where someone’s complaint arises matters more than where they live. That has a bearing on the issue, because one of my questions, which he touched on, was which user group an English person travelling through Wales would complain to.
However, perhaps the prescriptive nature of line 3 of subsection 1 is unnecessary. I suspected that the Assembly had the ability to confer or remove functions, and I was not sure why that was repeated. However, it is clear that, to that extent, the body will be in hock to the Assembly, so there is no point in pursuing the matter further.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 - Guidance and directions to the Committee

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 6, line 38, leave out subsection (4).
The amendment would simply delete what seems to be a superfluous subsection. The Assembly does not need the provision of subsection (4) for it to vary or revoke directions under the clause. Subsection (1) already grants the Assembly the power to give the committee directions as to how it should discharge its functions. From that, it should be obvious that it can change them as it wishes. Again, we must be careful that the committee does not become a puppet of the Assembly and that the Assembly does not have too much control. Such provisions must be carefully monitored and reviewed.

Nick Ainger: Clause 10(1) permits the Assembly to give directions to the Committee about the discharge of its functions. Amendment No. 11 would prevent the Assembly from changing or revoking any such direction once given. Situations evolve, and it would be inconsistent for us to give the Assembly the power to issue guidance or give directions without also giving it the power to alter or revoke them in the light of changing circumstances. I therefore suggest to the hon. Gentleman that, if the Assembly should have the  power to give directions and guidance, it should also have the power to remove them. I therefore urge him to withdraw the amendment.

Bill Wiggin: This is not one of the great “die in the ditch” moments of the Bill. I simply suggest that when the Assembly does not want something to be done, it should give guidance that it should cease. It seems to be unduly heavy-handed to give it a power to revoke. I genuinely did not think that my amendment would make a huge amount of difference, but I wanted to tease out of the Minister why the particular provision was included. When one has the privilege to seek to amend a Bill, it is useful to try to find out why certain parts that seem to be superfluous have been included, and I was doing no more than that. I agree with the Minister that if one issues an instruction, one should have the option to withdraw it. However, the drafting technique strikes me as unusual, and I am not sure that the provision is completely necessary. I do not wish to take up a great deal of the Committee’s time, and there is no further mileage to be had out of the amendment, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 - Financial assistance: air transport services

Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 7, line 7, leave out subsection (2).
Through the amendment we once again query why the Assembly should be able to provide financial assistance only to services or facilities that would not exist without help. This is similar to our debate this morning. Especially in the case of air services, it would be more productive to subsidise commercially viable enterprises than to give financial assistance to schemes that will have to be run at a loss. There are clearly huge financial implications: granting the Assembly power of financial assistance for air transport with no transferral of funds means that support will have to be found within the Assembly budget. It looks as though significant amounts of Welsh taxpayers’ money, which might be better spent elsewhere, will be spent on the additional costs arising from the provisions of the Bill. Of course, the development of Wales’ transport and economy is of the utmost importance.
It is also important to remember that the commercial viability of flights within Wales is questionable. As Bus Users UK has stated:
“required financial support is likely to be vastly out of proportion to the benefits that may accrue.”
The need for subsidies to start air transport services in the first place—pump-priming—raised the issue of whether services would be workable in the long term. Although there is no definite evidence that proves an unmet demand for flights within Wales, there is a strong argument that must be considered that air transport should be developed on a commercial basis only, and should not involve public funds. We must also consider any effect on rail services if passengers  were to move from rail to air transport. We would see weakened economic viability and threats to the economic growth of Welsh rail companies.

Lembit Öpik: On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Leominster said that he kept an open mind about the viability and attractiveness of a regional air network in Wales. It seems that he has made up his mind and that he is so in favour of a regional air network that he is willing to allow the Assembly to give financial assistance to services and facilities related to such a network, even if those services and facilities would exist without financial assistance. I may have misunderstood what the hon. Gentleman is attempting to do by proposing to delete the subsection, and I would value it if he could clarify that. As far as I can see, cutting subsection (2) would make it easier for the Assembly to provide financial assistance to profit-making services.

Bill Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman has an unusual style; he is particularly obtuse about this matter. We had a discussion about whether financial assistance should or could be given within certain parameters. He will recall that the Government have particular hang-ups about giving financially successful companies subsidies. I share that view, incidentally, but I do not agree that the wording in the Bill is the best way to proceed. He will know that there are not huge numbers of viable airlines flying between north Wales and anywhere else. The majority of people, particularly in the north, leave Wales to catch aeroplanes. Viability is the question. The amendment would give the Assembly more leeway to encourage those air services, if it deems it a wise move to do so.

Lembit Öpik: I find the hon. Gentleman’s intervention helpful. It clarifies things and I am encouraged by the line of debate.
Hon. Members will note that I am supportive of a small-scale regional air network to connect the various parts of Wales for the small number of people who need to get from one end of Wales to another quickly. I also recognise that we are not talking about A380 Airbuses going from Anglesey to Cardiff but about small aircraft, probably in many cases twin-engine propeller aircraft, which may accommodate as few as eight people. The debate on Second Reading gave me the impression that the hon. Member for Leominster was sceptical about that.
I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has fought his case on his scepticism about the idea, but I am encouraged by the fact—I am not trying to score points—that it would seem that he has made up his mind, to some extent. Had he come to the view that it was a bad idea to provide the option of financial support for a regional air network and associated services, he would have proposed the deletion of clause 11. As it is, he has decided that he wants to delete a subsection of the clause.
The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that we had an extensive debate on a similar amendment earlier. I found that amendment curious. Will the Minister clarify his interpretation of the implications of the  amendment were it to be passed? I have laid out what I think it would do, and will be interested to know what the Government think it would do.
The hon. Member for Leominster suggested that we are moving towards achieving a degree of common interest in having the good sense to allow the Welsh Assembly to make judgments about the viability and desirability of air networks. We covered the environmental considerations in some depth on Second Reading, so it is not appropriate to reopen that debate.
There are two important considerations in relation to the implementation of the clause that I shall address. It might surprise hon. Members to hear that there is already a thriving aviation network in Wales, albeit a small-scale one, which generally operates on a charter basis. The one that I know best derives from Mid Wales airport, in Welshpool, and uses aircraft such as the eight-seater Piper Navajo to transport people in and out of Wales on a charter basis. That growing business depends on there being reasonable facilities at Welshpool, and would benefit from further investment in the infrastructure of the airport. Some of that will happen because of the industry and the investment of the existing operator, Bob Jones, and some of it will come from the constructive partnership approach to investment that has been taken by Powys county council and the Welsh Development Agency.
Clause 11 would entitle Bob Jones to seek further funding for investment that he cannot afford and probably could not obtain purely from private funding, but which would necessarily increase the attractiveness of Welshpool as a business airport from which to base charter operations, and as an airport to charter flights to and from. That would clearly be in the interests of the population and businesses in the area.
The clause is useful because it does not exonerate airport operators from having to prove the business benefit of investments, and because it provides the Welsh Assembly with the opportunity to make such investments if it thinks that they are in the strategic interests of the locality or region.
The hon. Gentleman might be aware that there is already a low level of charter activity transporting people in and out of Wales and between north and south Wales. Indeed, various politicians have availed themselves of that facility, particularly during the general election. Although passenger numbers are not high, there is an ongoing demand for such a facility. I hope that in reading this Committee’s proceedings, the Welsh Assembly will recognise that all parties keep open minds about the viability of such investment.
The second consideration is not directly connected to investment in air transport in Wales, but, without getting too technical, there are other threats that could directly affect services in Wales. I refer to Eurocontrol—the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation—and navigation charges for general and light aviation.
I do not expect the Minister to respond today, but will he get his team to investigate the potential consequences of passing navigation charges, which are primarily paid by large airlines operating large aircraft, on to small operators? The cut-off point is aircraft with a gross weight of more than 2,000 kg, as those with a lower gross weight are exempt from certain navigation charges, but there is a threat that those charges will be imposed, and the drivers for doing that seem to be the large airlines. Such a move will make it difficult for the services that clause 11 is designed to support, because a number of charter operations will use aircraft weighing less than 2 tonnes.
I stress again that I do not expect the Minister to be an expert on the regulations and the proposed changes, but given their potential impact on what the Bill is designed to do and on what we might be able to achieve in the Welsh aviation charter field, I hope that he will ask the right questions and perhaps be willing to indulge in a dialogue outside Committee.
I shall be interested to hear the closing comments of the hon. Member for Leominster on this issue. I take heart from the fact that we have made some progress. Notwithstanding his scepticism about air transport in Wales, it seems that the Conservatives are willing at least to give the Welsh Assembly an opportunity to make a reasoned judgment on the future of air transport in Wales. That is to be welcomed.

Nick Ainger: Clause 11 empowers the Assembly to provide financial assistance for air transport services and airport facilities. It does not have that power currently and feels that it would be in its interests to have it. However, amendment No. 13 would remove the restriction imposed by clause 11(2) and allow the Assembly to provide financial support even if the service or facility would be provided without that subsidy. We have had this debate before, as the hon. Members for Leominster and for Montgomeryshire said. As the need for the Assembly to make a case for any expenditure on air transport serving Wales was rightly raised by several hon. Members on Second Reading, I am surprised at the amendment. I am sure that the Committee will agree with those comments and, like me, finds it hard to imagine the Assembly wanting to provide financial support for services and facilities that would otherwise be provided on a commercial basis.
The Assembly is of the firm opinion that airports and air services have a vital role to play for Wales in improving accessibility, opening up new markets and encouraging inward investment. However, it would want to provide funding for such services and facilities only if that were necessary to secure their provision. It may help the Committee if I refer to the public service obligation, because some of these issues relate to European state aid.
A PSO may be introduced by a member state under EC law to ensure that there is adequate provision of air services on a particular route. However, those services must fulfil certain requirements in order for a PSO to be introduced. First, the service must be to a “peripheral region”, a “development region” or on a
“thin route to any regional airport”.
I am not quite sure what a thin route is, but I imagine that it is one that is not well served.

Lembit Öpik: It is one that is not thick.

Nick Ainger: That is right.
Secondly, the service must be
“vital to the economic development of a region”.
Thirdly, the imposition of a PSO must be necessary to ensure the “adequate” provision of scheduled services. Currently in the UK, PSO routes are provided only in the Scottish highlands and islands.
So there is a process that must be gone through. The Assembly cannot decide willy-nilly to start supporting a particular air route or it will be contravening the PSO rules and the state aid provisions to which I have referred. I assure the Committee that the Assembly will not be able suddenly to start funding routes that are commercially viable. We have been through that debate before. Why on earth would the Assembly support a commercially viable route? Requirements under European state aid rules would prevent the Assembly from subsidising unnecessarily a route that existed or was to be established. With those comments, I urge the hon. Member for Leominster to withdraw the amendment.

Bill Wiggin: The Minister has very helpfully read out various pieces of existing legislation. The amendment seeks to give the Assembly more powers, which it should have, so my immediate reaction might not be as hostile as one might assume.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire asked whether I had changed my mind. I should point out that I would have voted against the Bill on Second Reading if I had felt that the Assembly should not have been able to engage in such a discussion. We have always kept an open mind. It is up to the Assembly to decide how it spends its money. If that is what the Assembly wants to do, the amendment would have given it more freedom to do so. If it is not allowed to do that anyway, it does not matter whether or not it is in the Bill.
There is therefore no great harm in the amendment. Leaving out the subsection would make no difference whatever, because the Assembly would not be able to subsidise services in any case. So I am not going to get hot under the collar about this amendment either, but it is always interesting to hear why the Assembly should not have further powers. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 12 to 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 - Money

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Bill Wiggin: I have a straightforward question for the Government. The amendment is designed to probe the necessity of the clause, which relates to money. Although I realise that a money section may or may not be necessary in the Bill, I must ask what money the Government have in mind.
As I understand the Bill, no changes will be made to the Welsh block grant. All the money for the proposals involved must be found from the Assembly’s current budget, so to what money does the clause refer? I notice that the Minister is receiving all sorts of assistance, so I am sure that he will be so kind as to provide us with all further details relating to the money to which the clause refers, and that I shall be able to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Ainger: The hon. Gentleman is right that no additional money will be given to the Assembly through the block grant for the measures contained in the Bill if and when it is enacted. Nevertheless, the Bill could give rise to increases in expenditure, which is the reason for the clause and the inclusion of a money resolution.
I assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that there will be no extra money in the foreseeable future.

Lembit Öpik: Is the Minister saying that although the Government do not intend to increase the block grant on the basis of the Bill, they are giving themselves the opportunity in the future to make additional payments—for example, through the block grant—for expenditure that is incurred as a result of the Assembly, say, lobbying Ministers in its attempt to influence new initiatives on the basis of what it is allowed to do under the Bill?

Nick Ainger: If circumstances arose in which the Bill incurred additional expenditure and we did not have the clause, we would have to return to the House and introduce primary legislation to take the necessary powers, which would be illogical. As I said, we do not believe there will be any need for Parliament to grant additional funds to enact any of the functions in the Bill, but who can predict what might happen in the distant future? The clause is a safety measure. I hope that that explains its purpose.

Bill Wiggin: I am deeply unhappy with that explanation. The explanation that the Minister did not give us is why the Government do not simply increase the block grant. There is no need to use the Bill as an excuse to give the Assembly more money; the Government can simply do that. There is no restriction on extra funding to Wales at any stage; it will be “Barnetted” and go into the block grant. The Government have already proposed to increase the block grant for Wales on a year-on-year basis until 2012. I am curious about why, suddenly, we need the belt and braces of the clause.

Nick Ainger: The hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian and he will know that there is always a money clause in Bills, not just those that relate to Wales. I shall try to help him further: the Bill carries  the potential for increased expenditure by the Assembly and local authorities; that needs to be authorised, regardless of anything that the Government might have to say.
I am trying to reassure the hon. Gentleman, first, that there is no intention to increase the block grant because of anything in the Bill. I cannot make predictions, but I cannot think of an example in which the Assembly would require the block grant to be increased rather than deciding to fund a particular function in the Bill from its own block grant and expenditure. However, it would be ludicrous not to provide for such an eventuality in the future and rather than going through the process of primary legislation, the clause has been included to cover the possibility of Parliament having to vote more money to the Assembly for the functions in the Bill. That is why the clause is there.

Bill Wiggin: I understand why it is there; the Minister explained it perfectly. Today we have agreed to the Assembly having all sorts of extra spending facilities, should it choose to use them—the ability to spend money on air transport, for example. The Government are clear that that is within the Assembly budget and we are all comfortable with that.
What is worrying is what decisions the Treasury may have taken—a Treasury Minister moved the proposal on Second Reading—that allowed the Government to have the wording in the Bill. The Government must estimate their expenditure at UK as well as Welsh level, so the Treasury must have thought about how much money the Bill could cost or it would not have allowed the clause to stay in the Bill. From my short experience in the House, I know that the Treasury would not issue a blank cheque of any kind.
The Bill has the potential to incur huge bills, should the Assembly so decide. We have pretty much agreed that providing air transport is not financially viable, but the Assembly can sponsor it. That could involve massive amounts, because there is virtually no limit on what could be spent flying A380s in and out of Cardiff. I know that that was never the Government’s intention, but they must have discussed the matter with the Treasury; otherwise, the clause could not have been tacked on to the bottom of the Bill.
The clause changes the Bill dramatically, because the Government’s list of intentions never included allowing the Assembly to spend more than there is in the block grant. I totally accept the Minister’s reasoning for the belt-and-braces approach, but I do not think that he has told us the whole story, so I shall give him the opportunity to do so now.

Nick Ainger: I shall respond again. I am assured that every Bill includes such a clause.

Lembit Öpik: Apart from private Member’s Bills.

Nick Ainger: That may be so, but every Government Bill certainly includes such a clause.
Let me try to help the hon. Member for Leominster. A UK-wide piece of legislation on transport or another issue may require the Assembly, a joint transport authority or a local authority to carry out functions in addition to those currently funded directly by the Assembly, and the clause would enable them to do so by allowing for additional funds to be made available for that purpose.

Bill Wiggin: Does not that fly in the face of devolution? The idea behind devolution is that the Welsh Assembly knows what its budget is, makes its decisions and gets on with things. It is not on suddenly to say, “It’s all right if they get into a pickle. We’ll bung ‘em.” That is absolutely against the spirit of everything that we have discussed today.

Nick Ainger: The hon. Gentleman is deliberately or inadvertently not understanding what I am saying. A new Act might be passed in Westminster requiring the Assembly to carry out additional functions that are not in the devolution settlement. There are grey areas in terms of transport, and air transport, as we discussed, will remain the responsibility of the Department for Transport, not the Assembly. However, a new requirement in future might mean that the Assembly, a joint transport authority or a local authority has to take additional sums from those that are being spent at the time. In those circumstances, that money could be spent.
Let me reiterate that most of the debate is theoretical. All the funding that we have discussed will be from within the block grant. Whether a decision was taken to subsidise an air transport route from north to south Wales or to have a new heads of the valleys long-distance bus route, the funding would come from within the Assembly budget. All that I am saying is that, as with all other legislation that we pass in the House, the Bill contains a money clause, and this one is no different.
We have gone round the houses sufficiently, and the hon. Gentleman has received his explanation. I hope that we can now move on to consider clause 16.

Bill Wiggin: The Minister has done a grand job. He has done everything that he can to explain the position to me and he has been charming and charitable, so he must not take my next point personally. Glancing around the Room, I do not think that he will have trouble outvoting me on this clause, but it is important that he does so because I do not see how the clause can be part of the Bill if he is serious about devolution. The idea that every Bill must have a money clause is fine, if they all apply to England and Wales.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I may be able to assist him.
If, at some time in future, the great Bill that is fermenting in the Treasury at the moment concerning the high-speed electrified line from London Paddington to Llangynwyd in my constituency is passed, I would not expect the Assembly to pick up the costs. If the Treasury is going to pump-prime that, I would expect money to be passed down. That is an  example of the sort of unforeseeable circumstance that may happen in two or three years’ time in my constituency, and I would expect monies to follow accordingly.

Bill Wiggin: I totally understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but there is no need for that to be done through the Bill. That is the point.

Lembit Öpik: I do not really want to pursue this point because we have probably done it to death, but does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that if he succeeds in winning a vote to take the money resolution out of the Bill, there will—[Interruption.] I am not holding my breath. If somehow that happens, there would be various elements of transport policy under the jurisdiction of the Assembly, which could not be supported financially by a Government sympathetic to that transport policy in Westminster.
Even if a Conservative Government were absolutely determined to electrify the line that the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) spoke of a moment ago, the Secretary of State for Wales would be obliged to tell the Chancellor, “I’m sorry, but we can’t pay for the bit that starts under the Severn and goes west towards Wales.” Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that in 10 years’ time he would want to be restricted as Secretary of State for Wales in his support for Wales concerning what would appear to be a random collection of areas of transport policy?

Bill Wiggin: I totally understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I understand why he says it, but he is wrong. He is wrong because even if I were to electrify the hon. Member for Ogmore, I would still have to—

Kevin Brennan: That was a shocking comment.

Bill Wiggin: Shocking indeed.
If I were to do so, I would have to pass a Bill that has a proper money resolution because that money would need to be spent. This Bill does not have a money implication. It is Budget neutral according to the Treasury and the Minister. All the spending will be done by the Assembly from within the block grant. Therefore, the idea that more money will be needed, hypothetically—I think that is the Minister’s argument—at some distant date when something changes can be legislated for at the time when that hypothetical future becomes reality. Therefore, there is no need for the Treasury to have the opportunity to spend.

Nick Ainger: On a point of order, Miss Begg. I have received further information on the matter. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the clause is in italics. The money resolution was passed on Second Reading and the clause cannot now be deleted. Can you confirm, Miss Begg, that a money resolution was passed on Second Reading and that the clause cannot, therefore, be deleted?

Anne Begg: Yes, a money order was passed on Second Reading, but it is for the Committee to go through the Bill clause by clause so it can express its view. It still has the opportunity to express its view by voting against the clause.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful for that ruling. It is an excellent example of why we should probe the Government at every opportunity to find out what they are up to. I think that they appreciate knowing what they are up to as well. However, I do not agree with the reasoning that underlies including the clause. I understand that it may be impossible for me to take it out of the Bill but I am not going to give up without having a go, so I shall press the matter to a Division.

Anne Begg: It is worth pointing out that if the vote on clause 15 were to be lost, it would still have no effect on the Bill.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided:  Ayes 11, Noes 2.

NOES

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Lembit Öpik: On a point of order, Miss Begg: does that even qualify as a moral victory?

Anne Begg: That is not a point of order for the Chair. I will leave it to individual Members to decide.

Clauses 16 and 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill to the House.

Anne Begg: I thank hon. Members for their presence. I hope that the new Members have found this a learning experience—I certainly have in the Chair.

Nick Ainger: Thank you for the way in which you have chaired the Committee, Miss Begg. It has been a pleasure to serve under you, even though it has been a brief experience—perhaps some would say the briefer, the better, but there we are. Through you, I thank the officials, the police and all the others associated with the conduct of the Committee. I thank my officials, who do not technically exist here, and I thank everyone for all the contributions that have been made. The Committee has been held in a good spirit and it shows  the benefit of pre-legislative scrutiny. The flow has been relatively easy today because a lot of the hard work has been done in the Welsh Affairs Committee and the National Assembly’s Economic Development and Transport Committee.
Although we were unable to accept amendments from the Opposition, those amendments were perfectly proper and gave us the opportunity to debate some important issues. They allowed the Government to place on the record our intention in respect of the Bill and the Opposition to express any concerns that they had. As a result of our deliberations, we will produce a good piece of legislation.

Bill Wiggin: I share in the thanks of the Minister and the whole Committee for the way in which you have handled the sittings, Miss Begg. The Committee has been exciting, and, particularly in the case of the last Division, groundbreaking in the way in which it has enabled us to discover certain parts of the legislative process. I agree with much of what the Minister just said, particularly about the hard work involved in the pre-legislative scrutiny.
One of the reasons why pre-legislative scrutiny is so effective is that the Government’s mind is very open at that stage. Any Member who can get his or her views through the Select Committee to the Government is likely to get a favourable response. Traditionally, that used to take place in the Standing Committee on the Bill. I would like the Government to be more open-minded, but this is not necessarily the Bill with which to emphasise that point. I can see the Chairman of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs chuckling from a sedentary position, because he knows, as I do, that that just does not happen anymore. However, we have—throughout—sought to test the Government and their resolve about the way in which they have worded the  Bill. We have drawn attention to the various anomalies. While I am not always happy to have to withdraw my amendments, I am grateful to the Minister for his constructive and helpful comments and guidance. Last but not least, I thank those hon. Members of the Opposition parties who did not table amendments—they must try harder next time.

Lembit Öpik: Further to whatever that was from the Englishman abroad, I thank you, Miss Begg, for a superlatively well chaired couple of sittings today, right up to the nail-biting climax on clause 15 on a vote that could not make a difference and was, anyway, lost. You may be interested to know that as soon as tomorrow afternoon I shall be flying Andrew Davies—one of the key players—from Cardiff international airport to Welshpool international airport. No doubt that will give me an opportunity to update him on our proceedings, on your exceptional chairing of the Committee and on the fact that it seems that, despite occasional contretemps today, there is a significant degree of agreement among all parties that the Welsh Assembly deserves the powers that the Bill gives it.
I look forward to a more integrated approach to road, rail and air transport in Wales in the future.

Hywel Williams: I add my thanks to you, Miss Begg. I congratulate everyone on a well tempered and interesting debate. I look forward to many more such debates in the Welsh Grand Committee and Welsh Standing Committees. I do not know how things are done in Scotland, but I think that this is a model for how things are done in Wales. I wish the Bill good speed.

Question put and agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Committee rose at twenty-two minutes past Five o’clock.